A pointless pursuit

For well over three years the former M15 officer, David Shayler, has been spilling secrets in interviews, articles and on his own website (www.shayler.com). Only recently he took part, live from Paris, in a Newsnight programme which also included Tom King, parliamentary overseer of the security services. Last month, miffed by something he read about himself in these pages, he wrote a letter to the Guardian. It broke no new ground and revealed no new secrets. Much of it was a rambling diatribe against politicians, cut for reasons of space.

For reasons which are still not entirely clear, the police applied to a judge to force the Guardian to hand over the full text of the original email sent by Mr Shayler. Pressed to explain how this might help investigations, an officer told the court it might reveal Mr Shayler's email address. Jack Straw might have helped them there: Mr Shayler emails him, too. Though the police could provide no further evidence as to why it was so vital that they have access to Mr Shayler's email, an Old Bailey judge yesterday found against the Guardian (and its sister paper, the Observer).

We will challenge this judgment. There ought, in a free country, to be a presumption that people can contact newspapers without the fear that their communications will be handed over to the police. If the legal authorities do wish to impose this chill on freedom of expression there ought to be a heavy onus on them to prove the exceptional nature of the circumstances. It is our belief that the police came nowhere near proving such circumstances in this case. We recently argued a similar case when the police asked us to provide pictures of the City of London rioters. On that occasion, their application failed. This application also deserves to fail. Meanwhile, the police could do worse than try emailing david@shayler.com.